The RESEARCH Component
The systematic investigation of unresolved questions both as related to understanding nature including human behavior, and to policy issues regarding human activity within the natural environment has been and is properly understood as the role of ‘research’. This is a function that overlaps and serves both the discourse component of the proposed policy, and education, as well as the action projects as the underlying knowledge basis for the technology and techniques they use.
While research has traditionally been one of the primary responsibilities of universities, a more recent shift has seen research activity being taken over by both governments, industry, and private research institutes ('think tanks') working independently or on contract for government and industry. The implications of this development have not yet been adequately investigated and understood, though some problems have become quite apparent. They include issues regarding secrecy of research done in government research institutions, controversies about research results produced for and paid for by paying clients, legal issues about the right to profit from research, under the heading of ‘intellectual property’; or the new category of crime in the form of ‘industrial espionage’. The common problems here include questions about how commercial and state interests influence research objectivity, the question of research priorities and funding, and about ethical implications of withholding publication of research results to protect commercial (profit) interests. For many kinds of research tasks, the internet itself constitutes a new form of data-gathering and analysis tool whose potential has yet to be fully realized.
It is widely accepted that answers to humanity’s problems are to a significant degree going to be provided by research. For the short term, it seems obvious and unavoidable that most research for the global effort called for by the Secretary General will have to rely on the existing research institutions. This will require extensive coordination. The question whether entirely new institutions and networks will have to be developed to meet this global challenge and resolve the issues surrounding current research practices should therefore occupy a place of highest priority on the agenda of any forum or institution attempting to coordinate the effort to ensure the development of a better model for survival.
A key issue both regarding the coordination of research work in existing institutions and the development of any new organizations is the traditional division of research by 'disciplines'. For some time already, 'interdisciplinary' studies and research have been proposed and carried out to overcome the limitations of the traditional model. An example of exploration of new forms of organizing research is the development of systems science and 'systems thinking' -- from its inception over half a century ago an effort to discover common patterns in different disciplines, as well as a vital tool in achieving a better understanding of 'whole systems' in nature, (ecology) society, the economy, and industry. The premise of the 'Systems Thinking World' forum has been that systems thinking and modeling will be a key tool in the development of any new economic / societal model for survival -- though questions have been raised about its limitations and problems as well, for example the emergence of several 'schools' of systems studies, each with its own basic assumptions, tools and jargon. As for many other disciplines, the specialized jargon presents a significant barrier for the meaningful injection of research results into public policy discourse.
The proposed framework for the discourse component could help alleviate a problem regarding the relationship between social policy and research that has caused significant controversy. It is the blurred boundary between scientific-technological expertise and the legitimation to make policy decisions, that has led scientists and technology experts to claim the right to influence policy decisions on social goals on the basis of their scientific and technological expertise -- and political decision-makers to defer to such experts, leading to decisions that were unacceptable to wide segments of affected populations. The explicit distinction between the different types of issues and argument premises in planning and policy arguments make it clear that the scientific-technical expertise is inescapably necessary for the validation of factual and factual-instrumental claims but does not extend to the assessment of plausibility and valuation of deontic (ought-) claims. The role of research in the discourse of policy development would thereby be clarified, to the benefit both of research and the policy discourse.
Priority Topics for Research
One of the most critical tasks regarding the research component of the proposed framework is the development of a new set of agreements and ethical rules for the use or exploitation of research results by both governments inasmuch they see themselves in competition with other governments, and private enterprise for the purpose of securing competitive advantage in pursuing commercial advantage and profit. A new balance must be found between the principle that knowledge derived from scientific research should benefit society in general, and the right of entities sponsoring research to be the primary beneficiaries from that research.
The development of more comprehensive, stable and effective 'systems' models for the prediction of outcomes of human activities, proposed policies, technologies and organization in the overall global system of humanity and nature should be seen as an important task -- especially with respect to the experience of many well-intentioned human interventions leading to serious 'unintended consequences'. And of course continued effort should be focused on the more efficient use and re-use of natural resources, on 'closing the loop' of resources, helping to shift the pattern of resource use from a linear 'cradle to grave' (waste, detrimental emissions) to a circular 'cradle to cradle' model.
In the social-science corner, the development of better approaches to the control of power should be pursued more intensely -- power in government, but also power in private enterprise and other human institutions, and especially the power of entities outside government (and therefore not subjected to traditional 'balance of power' provisions) on government. A related issue is that of developing better mechanisms for conflict resolution on all levels, and provisions for ensuring that resulting agreements and treaties (laws and regulations) will be adhered to: sanctions that do not require 'enforcement' with the threat of violence or coercion.
These topics coincide with items on the agenda of the 'discourse' component, since the development and introduction of such tools is itself a policy issue to be resolved with the help of research but not by research; in the global discourse. Examples of such topics (some with material compiled during the STW discussion) are listed in the appendix. […]
Diagram: Research Component
